The Tribune

I realise that during this election season in The Bahamas there will be a lot of political rhetoric spoken while the various parties are on the campaign trail, and much of it is not worth responding to or commenting on. I must say, though, how disappointed I am that the Prime Minister dismissed as mere “foolishness” the allegations made against both Desmond Bannister and Adrian Gibson in relation to contracts awarded in their respective areas of responsibility. This is particularly because these claims, though denied, have not been fully addressed by the duo with the Public Procurement Act 2021 now into its second week of existence.

Indeed, my fear is that Dr Hubert Minnis’ response both solidifies and confirms what the international consultant employed by the Ministry of Finance had to say in his final report, where he said: “The resistance to the public procurement reform from top-level political positions and senior-level management officials in government, as well as from Members of Parliament, has also obstructed progress regarding the new public procurement legislation development and implementation of new procurement tools.”

If re-elected, will a Minnis administration resist the implementation of the Public Procurement Act? Our international partners and stakeholders, such as the Inter-American Development Bank (IDB), International Monetary Fund (IMF), Caribbean Development Bank, the World Bank, the US State Department and the Organisation of American States (OAS) committee Against Corruption, are all watching and listening, andI am certain asking the same questions.

Dr Minnis’ comments are a poor example emanating from the political directorate because, in the coming months, Bahamian public procurement officers in the civil service will have to undergo serious cultural changes. From having ministers and MPs dictating to them which one of their constituents should get a contract, they will now have to make these decisions as a committee themselves, and will have to change their modus operandi of using a selective bidding process when it ought to be competitive. Further, they will be required to advertise the awardees of all major contracts.

Just last week I had a personal experience with regards to the Department of Public Works’ selective bidding process. The Department had employed a contractor to place a basketball court and a tennis court, among other facilities, on the park in the subdivision in which I reside, and was insistent that the work begin immediately. The total value of the contract, I understand, is about $150,000. What was astonishing was that this effort to upgrade the park was neither advertised in the newspapers nor on the Government’s e-procurement Supplier Registry. I would assume that these park upgrades are those the minister of public works spoke about during his Budget presentation. Some may argue, though, that these funds should have been diverted to aid our collapsing public healthcare system. I believe the Department of Public Works should be made to answer the following questions:

* Why was this park bid done selectively?

* Was the contractor paid in advance?

* Can you confirm the dollar value of this contract?

If they cannot, perhaps the documents can find their way to me.

From January 2019 to March 2021, I had personally spearheaded the training of over 60 engineers, quantity surveyors and electricians from the Department of Public Works on the use of the e-Procurement Supplier Registry. To date, if you were to search the supplier registry, you would note that only three employees from the Department of Public Works are using the system for goods, works and services.

I commend them. However, this lack of interest in using competitive bidding processes does not only lie at the feet of the political directorate but also senior civil servants, who find themselves falling prey to their ministers’ political agenda. Successive governments have used this modus operandi before, but civil servants now have relief to object to anything they consider contrary to the Public Financial Management Act 2021.

The Act’s Part II - Roles and Responsibilities states in section 15:

1. Objection to direction.

(1) A public officer or public office holder who is directed by any minister of the Government or any public officer or public office holder to do anything that he knows, or has reason to believe, is contrary to this Act or any other Act, shall—

(a) Object in writing to the minister giving the direction, or the public officer or public office holder giving the direction.

(b) Provide a copy of the objection to the permanent secretary if the permanent secretary is not the public officer or public office holder who gave the direction.

(c) Provide a copy of the objection to two of the following persons— (i) the chairperson of the Public Service Commission; (ii) the Attorney General; or (iii) the financial secretary

There is no need to be complicit any longer.

NB: Daniel Ferguson, a retired chief petty officer with the Royal Bahamas Defence Force (RBDF), is a former procurement officer in the Ministry Health and Ministry of Finance, and former component co-ordinator for the Inter-American Development Bank (IDB) sponsored public financial management reform project, in particular the public procurement reform. He led the drafting team for the development of the Public Procurement Bill 2021, and public procurement regulations. He is a chartered member of the Chartered Institute of Procurement and Supply, with over 25 years of experience in public procurement.